Does mathematics really exist in nature or is math just a human construct?

I believe Maths follows certain Laws (common sense) but these are CREATED by us.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No there aren't.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you telling me that a *formal lecture* by a qualified scientist loses value or credibility because it is posted on YouTube?

You tube has many excellent qualities, great music, great art, great science, and yes a bunch of trash. But we need not look for trash, only for the little gems hidden among the trash.

The content of a formal lecture is and remains unaltered, regardless of the medium used. In this case it was a formal lecture by an eminent scientist in the lecture hall of the Carnegie Institute for the Sciences.

 

How can you create something that follows from pre-existing observation? A language perhaps?

 

Is that below the standards of paying attention? Please, give me a little more credit that that.

 

No I'm telling you that
"Read my posts! If, as a chemist, you are not interested in the mathematics of chemistry, then don't claim authority."
is a ridiculous excuse for demanding someone watch a video.

If you have a point to make, extract it from the video. The onus is on you to to make your case.

 

And I did with a recoreded lecture from an expert. Where did you get your knowledge from? Thin air? Moreover, that post was addressed at exchemist. He is able to speak for himself.

 

Right, then, I shall do so.

Dave is spot on, but clearly you not understand my position so let me elaborate a little. I consider lazy and unreasonable of you to tell me to watch up to 5o minutes of video footage, without bothering to tell me specifically what there is in it that would make it worth my while to do so - and where in the lecture I can find it, so that I can go to it directly and save myself some time.

Look at this from my point of view for a moment. I've told you I know something about the maths of chemistry already (Stat TD, QM), and roughly what the limits of my knowledge are (Chemistry degree, 1970s, well-known UK university) OK? Now, I have lost count of the number of boring videos and TV programmes I have endured, while some - often very capable - person tries to explain, in words of one syllable, to people with no science education at all, a handful of concepts that I have been thoroughly familiar with for 40 years. That is what can happen when you have some education in a subject, as you probably know from your own professional background. Now, I do not know who this lecture of yours was aimed at, or what level of prior knowledge was assumed by the speaker. And you are apparently unwilling - or unable - to tell me specifically what there is in it that you think might be a new insight for me. So it should not come as huge surprise to you that my reaction is, as we say over here: "Well, sod that for a game of soldiers!"

If you are prepared to summarise what in this lecture you think might be new to me, (or find a transcript or paper by the lecturer), I would be able to read that - or at least identify the bits of interest to me - in about 5 minutes, i.e. in 10% of the time. Furthermore, as this is a discussion forum, words on the thread page can be read by others, spreading the ideas and encouraging further comment. Links to lengthy video footage do not.

 

Put that 1 in your pipe and smoke it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Mathematics is a language, like English. A similar question is whether time exists or is a human construct. Is life the product of self-organizing information? Where does wisdom come from? What is a belief? The best thing for you would be to find a good dictionary, look things up, and try to put things together for yourself. Then ask questions to see if you could be right about it.

 

Ok, that is a reasonable request.
He actually demonstrates (with illustrations) the number of chemical reactions that have moe or less occurred during the life of this planet, and from these statistics he proposes thatlife could have evolved in some 10,000 different ways and that the question of "chance" and "necessity" are a dichotomy, where the answer lies in between as "probabilities". He further demonstrates the probabilities of life occurring on earth given the size of the laboratory, the earth itself and the time it has had to process ab astronomical number of "tries". His final point was that life occurring somewhere in the universe was inevitable, he used the word "Imperative". The accompanying slides and graphs are of good quality and he is an easy speaker.
His approach to the secret of life is through chemichal reactions , because we have an inexhaustible supply of chemical reactions taking place. It is really very informative interpspersed with a little humor about his own "named" chemical. The introduction is a waste of time. start @ 25:00 and give it ten minutes.. please.

 

Mathematics is a universal language. Humans have ten fingers (decimal system) and a number they describe has the same value in any language. Mathematical coding however uses a language but this coding does not have to exist only on a computer. It is possible to program and code the universe by writing your code:

a=?
b=??

if a=b then c=b

You may then substitute your values with your mind: think "a=?" and the value will be substututed.

This is useful for the formula:

XROOT(1^(X)

This is not the square root but the root of x (i.e. what number must be multiplied to equal 1 (the individual)) which is then performed by the power (^) so 1=x

This is useful for medicinal qualities. Please remember there is an antidote:

x=antidote

or

antidoteroot(1^(anitidote))

The formula follows mathematical laws. On a calculator the answer for each value is x itself. Enjoy!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You may also set time limits between data entry:

if password<>password then wait 24hours

if password<>password/I then password=password/I

So that I becomes password:

10/1=10/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

 

I understand your viewpoint, but is not as complicated as one might imagine also. It is a matter of *probability*, and given enought time the one *lucky roll of the dice will occur*

In one of my first on-line poker games I drew a 7 card Royal Flush (8, 9,10,J,Q,K,A), a once in a lifetime hand. Of couse only 5 cards counted, but the odds against such a hand at a full table with 6 other players having each been dealt hands, are just astronomical. I hit within a few weeks.
IMHO. our existence (some 500 molecules) we enter the hierarchy of probabilities. The Implicate. And the probability was in our favor.

 

Waiter, you are drifting off into rhetoric that is way off-topic.

Considering your understanding of arithmetic:

perhaps you should avoid making assertions regarding mathematics.

 

I watched that section (15 mins, from the 25 min mark) and noted the following points:

- an observation about what he sees as "false dichotomy" between "chance" and "necessity" in the origin of life,

- some interesting findings about the formation of organic molecules in the upper mantle, at subduction zone sites. (Not clear whether this was actual drilling or just lab simulation of the conditions)

- the spontaneous formation of membranes, in water suspensions made from the reaction products of pyruvate with CO2 at high pressure,

- last, and for me most interesting, that the chirality of crystal faces of some common minerals (quartz, calcite) leads to preferential adsorption of different enantiomers (=left and right-handed stereoisomers of the same chemical) of some of the building blocks of life (amino acids etc).

It was good stuff, certainly. The drift of the talk seemed to be to show that, far from the appearance of life being so unlikely as to be almost miraculous, there may have been in fact abundant opportunities for the building blocks to arise, in many different ways and in several different types of site on the early Earth.

What I do not understand, though, is how you derive any support for your views about mathematics and nature from it. There was a bit of qualitative discussion of probabilities, but apart from that, nothing related to mathematics at all, so far as I could see.

 

First I want to thank you for actually watching the pertinent part of the presentation and I am encouraged that you found some interesting facts. That makes me happy in its own way.

As to the mathematical functions involved, perhaps we look at maths from a slightly different perspective.
I may be wrong, but when I look at all the structures and graphs, I see mathematical functions everywhere, even as they may be embedded within the structure itself.

If we look at Graphene, we see a perfect mathematical structure,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Graphene is an atomic-scale honeycomb lattice made of carbon atoms.

I cannot see chance here. To me this creation, this beautiful *regular" organization, must have come to be as a result of some mathematical function at even an atomic scale. I see geometry.

 

Hum, I wonder if 1^2 yields two ones, yet the result = 1

 

Sure. But you posted a model of graphene, not the stuff itself. You'll find the actual stuff somewhat messier.

A decent picture can be found in this: http://home.skku.edu/~femlab/publications/2012/graphene review in carbon letters.pdf

One can also see that it takes a special environment to get such regular graphene.

 

No one except you has mentioned "chance".

Regular structure happens a lot in the universe.

Carbon atoms have distinct bonds. Each carbon atom acts according to local, immediate forces, which, in aggregate, has a regular structure. No mathematical functions need to be present for the atoms to do their thing.